Film Journals
Please share your experiences working with these journals! Feel free to add other journals to the list. Try to stick with this format: each journal should be separated by dashes, and responses under each journal should each have their own bullet. See also: Literary Studies Journals ---- ''Adaptation: The Journal of Literature On Screen Studies *Submitted paper on Oct 1, and had feedback by mid-November with a three-week turnaround for resubmitting minor revisions. The revised version was accepted for publication in late December, maybe two weeks after submitting the revisions. Journal issue appeared online the following spring. Amazingly fast, with concise but pointed and helpful criticism from reviewers. ---- Animation *Great initial response--was assigned a sub-editor right away, but I've currently been waiting a year without receiving reviews. ---- ''Black Camera * ---- ''Camera Obscura: Feminism, Culture, and Media Studies * Received an immediate confirmation of submission, with a timeframe for review indicated of three to five months. I received a rejection after four months, which, though disappointing, came with very helpful and specific readers' reports. * Submitted via email, confirmation received four days later. R&R approx. 4 months later. Very, very, very limited comments for revision. They do not sent reader reports; rather, they send a generalized letter from the editor that coallates the reader comments. There's no sense of how likely an acceptance is on future revisions or even how to interpret specific revision suggestions. Pretty frustrating, all in all. ---- Cinema Journal *Have to be a member of Society for Cinema and Media Studies to submit. Fast rejection but one with a recommendation for another journal, which did accept my article. *Received a supportive rejection from editor a month after submission. Felt scope was too narrow, but recommended alternative venue. *Submitted here over a year ago. Article was rejected. It was politically and theoretically oriented, and I don't think they had the right reader for it (they gave me some truly bizarre comments for revision). Article was accepted at a better journal a couple of month later with minor revisions. *I fully agree with the above comments. My readers seemed particularly ill-suited for my theoretically-oriented essay, gave some bizarre comments for revision, but my article was also accepted at an equivalent or better venue soon after. *Good experience. Timely turn-around and great (incl. critical) feedback. ---- Discourse *could anyone comment on turn around time? thanks in advance *Wonderful experience with this journal. The initial review took 6 months. I received detailed and helpful comments. My revised article was accepted within a month after I submitted it, but took 3 months or so to finally appear in print. ---- Film Criticism *Insert blank line below this entry ... Film & History *Bloody awful. Was told I'd receive a response in six months. Had to query after ten months passed in order to receive a delay notice. Had to query AGAIN after an entire year only to be told I had been rejected. I guess they never planned on telling me. *The most arrogant and unprofessional editor. A month after submitting an article, I was told my article will be sent to reviewers and I would hear back within six months. After ten months, I decided to ask for an update. I received a short and poorly worded email saying the article had been rejected. When I asked for comments, the editor decided not to reply. I knew the article was never sent anywhere. I contacted the editor once more, pointing out that as per their website I was entitled to get a report. A week passed, during which the editor apparently read the article and wrote a two-sentence report. Not only was the "report" riddled with punctuation mistakes, it was also mean-spirited--perhaps because I ensured he actually read the article. Unless you have a year to waste, send your work elsewhere. ---- Film History: An International Journal *Three month turnaround; extremely detailed and supportive comments on a rejection. *Excellent turn-around time and good feedback. Very professional. ---- Film Quarterly *Excellent (five week) turnaround from submission to response. Good feedback: detailed and helpful comments. Very professional. Highly recommend. *At present, FQ is working with Ford Foundation and Just Films, and recently received funding to pursue work to increase diversity in film criticism and to address issues of social justice in more contemporary fiction, documentary, and experimental media. *Insert line below this entry ... *Slacker reviewers (one of whom never turned in a report, another who promised to read revised version but then didn't) derailed the process. Most frustrating experience of my career (and I've published a lot!) Framework *The editor will give you a good idea beforehand whether the article is a fit for the journal. On the other hand, one of my articles was returned with little or no feedback. ---- Game Studies *Review process took about 12 months. Review comments were helpful for revision, but editorial timeline was very poorly communicated, which made the publication process needlessly stressful. Editorial processes may have improved more recently. ---- Grey Room Does anyone have any experience with this journal? I sent an article in over a week ago and have yet to receive an acknowledgement. I'm wondering if ''Grey Room ''has long response times. Thanks *I waited a week or possibly a bit more for an acknowledgement that the article was sent out for review, and then 6 months for a revise & resubmit. Currently waiting to hear on revisions. I wouldn't worry too much based on my experience, and would recommend patience (I know it's hard). Good luck! *Awful experience with this journal. Took almost a year, and couldn't get anyone to respond to multiple inquiries. Withdrew article at 9 month mark. **Had the EXACT same experience. Withdrew article after 9-10 months of utter incompetence. Happy to have published it elsewhere. *(second poster here) I agree. Turns out that my R&R resulted in a rejection -- but only once I inquired after the third or fourth month -- with a note that, given the amount of submissions, they couldn't provide any comments. Frustrating to say the least. *Ditto to all of the above. This was the most unprofessional experience I've had yet in academic publishing. They held my piece for 10 months. I sent them monthly e-mails during the last four months and never got any response (except to my first e-mail, when they said they'd have more information for me within the month). Then, one day, I got a simple "no" without any comments or reader reports. ''Grey Room was recommended to me as an exciting and polished journal, but my sources now tell me they must have been wrong: the new editors have changed all that. So long to the reputation this journal once had ... *Submitted an article and didn't receive even a confirmation that it had been received. When I inquired a month later, I got an email back saying it had already been rejected. Even worse that the poor communication was the fact that although it was "carefully reviewed by several readers" no feedback could be provided because of a lack of resources and support. I'm assuming the readers gave feedback to someone. How much more effort does it take to cut and paste their comments into a document to send to the author? Completely unprofessional and a waste of time. *Members of the editorial board don't communicate with each other or seem to agree on an editorial policy. Much of what is listed above also happened to me. ---- ''Historical Journal of Film, Radio and Television *Very good experience. Article accepted a month after I sent it (with good readers' reports and some minor changes), then published about 5 months later. ---- Journal of Film and Video *Tremendous backlog. My piece has been ready to go -- copyedits and all -- for over two years. Unresponsive editor. ---- Journal of Gaming and Virtual Worlds *Good experience. Submitted 11/14. Was told I'd hear 4/15, but didn't, so sent an inquiry in late 5/15. Got a response a few days later saying one reviewer never responded, and they'd find an alternative. Heard two days later that I was accepted with minor revisions for publication 9/15. *Very quick turnaround. Article went from submitted to published in about 6 months. Peer review comments were helpful as was editorial guidance, although I have reason to believe this varies a bit depending on which editor your piece is assigned to. Overall, very straightforward process. ---- Literature/Film Quarterly *Very positive experience here. Quick turnaround (2 months) for initial response with requested revisions. Readers' comments were insightful and specific. Clear and timely communication from editorial staff. ---- New Review of Film and Television Studies * ---- October *This journal is posted at Comparative Literature, Cultural Studies and Theory Journals ---- Quarterly Review of Film and Video *I'd agree with the assessment just written below. The new editor tries to keep new submitters informed. *I didn't have any of the below problems with long waiting, but there is now a new editor, so that may be why. I submitted 8/14. Inquired about the status 2/15. Editor is really nice, apologized a week later for the wait. Heard two days later I was accepted for publication 7/15. *Received the same notification re: 3 year waiting period less than 2 hours after submission. *Received notification that there is currently a 3 year waiting period for new material, and that they are completely "full up at the moment" within 36 hours of submitting a manuscript. *Two years ago, received a rejection within 20 minutes of submitting an article. A friend received an acceptance within a similar timeframe. I believe "peer review" is used very loosely here, and that it is the editor deciding on inclusion based on article topic (not argument). *Desk rejections are not uncommon. ---- Screen *Great experience! Whether they accept your article or not, their feedback is detailed and helpful. * Agreed-- efficient and smooth, a model for the peer review process. About 3.5 months to a revise & resubmit, then an acceptance about 3 weeks after resubmission. Reviews were smart, even-keeled, and very helpful. Clearly a terrific editorial board and administration. * Very professional. Good feedback and quick turn-around. * Echoing the above comments: efficient and smooth. Indeed, a model for the peer review process. Comments were smart and helpful. Response w/in 24 hours of submission to confirm submission (automatically generated through web-site upload). Readers' reports (3!) 5 weeks after submission. [http://journals.berghahnbooks.com/screen-bodies ''Screen Bodies] * A journal at the intersection of Screen Studies and Body Studies. ---- Senses of Cinema *Does not accept unsolicited article submissions. Predominantly commission-based. Thus, must propose idea (200 words) for an article first. *Not a fully refereed journal. Thus, articles are not necessarily peer-reviewed. If peer review is requested, indicate with initial idea proposal. *Insert blank line below this entry ... ''Studies in French Cinema *Also posted at French and Francophone Studies Journals ---- ''Studies in Hispanic Cinema * ---- ''Studies in Russian and Soviet Cinema *Excellent experience! Article accepted within a month of submission, with good readers' report. Working with the editor was a pleasure. ---- The Moving Image * ---- ''Third Text *See comments on this journal at Comparative Literature, Cultural Studies and Theory Journals ----